Analysis: National Debt Could Rise Under Both Harris and Trump, But More Under Trump
WASHINGTON — Neither candidate’s proposed economic plans are likely to be popular, as they could significantly increase the national deficit, according to a new analysis.
The analysis, released Monday by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, suggests that a Harris presidency could increase the national debt over the next decade by $3.5 trillion. This is despite the Vice President’s campaign asserting that her proposed investments in the middle class and housing would be fully offset by higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy. Her campaign policy guide states that Harris is “committed to fiscal responsibility — making investments that will support our economy, while paying for them and reducing the deficit at the same time.”
The same analysis states that former President Trump’s proposals could add another $7.5 trillion to the national debt, potentially reaching as high as $15.2 trillion. This is despite his claim that economic growth under his leadership would be so robust that deficits would be a non-issue.
The 34-page report released by the fiscal watchdog group highlights the issue of government borrowing that will face the winner of November’s election. Total federal debt held by the public currently exceeds $28 billion and is anticipated to continue rising as revenues fail to keep pace with the increasing costs of Social Security, Medicare, and other programs. The analysis notes that the expense of servicing this debt, in dollar terms, has “eclipsed the cost of defending our nation or providing health care to elderly Americans.”
Drawing on the candidates’ speeches, campaign documents, and social media posts, the analysis warns frankly: “Debt would continue to grow faster than the economy under either candidates’ plans and in most scenarios would grow faster and higher than under current law.”
Neither candidate has significantly emphasized budget deficit reduction in their appeals to voters. However, multiple analyses indicate a clear difference, with Harris being considered more fiscally responsible than Trump.
Harvard University professor Jason Furman, who served as the top economist in the Obama White House, estimated in an opinion article for The Wall Street Journal that Harris’ plans could either cut deficits by $1.5 trillion or increase them by the same amount. Meanwhile, his estimates show that Trump’s plans would increase deficits by $5 trillion, although this figure does not include his proposals to eliminate taxes on overtime pay and remove the cap on deductions for state and local taxes.
Further estimates by The Budget Lab at Yale and the Penn Wharton Budget Model also suggest that Harris would be more effective in controlling the deficit.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget analysis estimates that Harris’ policy ideas could add $3.5 trillion to the national debt through 2035. This conclusion relies on its interpretation of the potential costs associated with various programs.
It forecasts that Harris would implement $4.6 trillion in tax reductions, including extensions of some of the expiring 2017 tax cuts that Trump signed into law and tax breaks for parents and the elimination of taxes on tipped income for hospitality workers. Roughly $4 trillion in higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy would be insufficient to cover the total cost of her agenda and the additional interest on the debt it could generate.
However, the analysis acknowledges that its figures are based on various interpretations of what Harris has stated. It’s possible that Harris’ agenda would have no impact on baseline deficits, but the report also suggests that it might plausibly add as much as $8.1 trillion in debt, representing a worst-case scenario.
In contrast, Trump’s proposals would likely add another $7.5 trillion to the debt. His $2.7 trillion in tariff revenues would be unable to cover $9.2 trillion in tax cuts and additional expenditures such as $350 billion to secure the border and deport unauthorized immigrants.
However, the analysis includes other possibilities that indicate significantly higher deficits under Trump. If his tariffs generated less revenue and there were higher costs associated with his mass deportations and tax breaks, the national debt could increase by $15.2 trillion.
On the other hand, if the tariffs generated $4.3 trillion and there were no costs associated with deportations, Trump’s plans could only increase the debt by $1.5 trillion over a decade.